I've come across a theory floating around and thought I'd bring it up for discussion. Theory being, WWE has spent the last few years purposely holding talent back. Purposely keeping talent under their thumbs in an effort to make WWE, the brand, the main draw instead of the talent. Focusing more on having people tune in to / buy the SHOW as a whole instead of for the talent on it.

THINK about this before you shoot it down. "SUPER Stardom" is treated like it's this decade long process, when it's really not. It's one way of going about it, but ultimately it's letting the right guy go out and execute a good idea. An ACTUAL good idea. Not good by comparison, but something original and innovative and following through with it. It's as simple as home-run, starting with the crack of the bat. WWE's been hitting fowl balls for years.

It's inexcusable that in 2012 the only guys "fit" to challenge for Undertaker's streak are not active performers. It's inexcusable that in 2012 there's only one active performer "fit" to face The Rock or Brock Lesnar. That it's known that the feeling is that "nobody on the roster could handle that kind of push". That Triple H has to come out of his office and fill this void. It's absurd that Vince McMahon feels the need to save the day when ratings slump. Why...

In a WWE Universe that's scripted word for word, why is it that we're here? How is it that WWE has adopted Social Media as a main target audience, yet it's ambassador Zack Ryder has been removed from the equation? How is it that great, no brainer concepts, like Nexus or Anti-Establishment CM Punk get watered down and washed away? Why DOES Cena close shows and PPV's over Champions? Quick title changes and no prestige given to the champions, rushed angles, and no investment or commitment given to character development. Kind of odd for a company who admittedly "lacks Main Event talent". Yes, they lack them. There aren't guys on the level of Triple H, or Stone Cold, or The Rock, or The Undertaker on the roster. That's a fact, but I'm wondering if WWE even wants that. They blame departures and injuries, but what really deems a guy/gal "worthy" anyway?

WWE has publicly stated that they wish to be known as more than a Wrestling Company. In PR for The Network, they even went as far to say that they want to be known as a "lifestyle". It's kind of hard to live up to such bold expectations when your brand is overshadowed by your "brands" within. It has no outside competition, could it be that Vince has identified WWE's biggest threat as the potential of the talent within it?

What do you think? Is it possible that the unspoken goal of WWE is to establish itself as the draw?

I don't agree with your overall premise, but you do make some good points (especially your point on what super-stardom is and isn't). I would rather just attribute them to negligence and stupidity than to a decision to stink on purpose. Nexus is a great example of this. Nexus is not a "great, no-brainer concept." WWE got lucky that Nexus worked. They put no forethought into it whatsoever, and the resolution (or lack thereof) makes that sorely clear.
-They had hinted that there was someone behind Nexus, pulling the strings... never resolved (even after they attempted to imply that it was Hunter & Steph).
- The identity of the Anonymous GM (who was anonymous because he/she was scared because of what Nexus had done to Bret Hart)- resolved stupidly, two years too late, in a throwaway segment and in a way that made no kayfabe sense.
- The secret reason why Nexus attacked Taker- never mentioned again.
- Otunga's dissatisfaction with Barrett's leadership- resolved off-handedly when Otunga, along with a few others, joined Punk for totally unrelated reasons.
The split between the factions and feud between them- whoops! There was no feud between them.

All of it was hap-hazzardly thrown together, things were added with no possible thought given to how they would end.

Compare this to two other famous and successful invasion angles: The nWo and the BDK-
From the very beginning, the nWo had a thing it wanted to do and a place it wanted to go: Hogan, Hall, and Nash would invade, other people would eventually turn, Sting would get annoyed at people not trusting him, Hogan would hold the title forever, then Sting would come save us. Yes, certain details were left open, like who would turn and when, but they had their plans for the beginning, middle and end.
Same with the BDK- and yeah, Lince Dorado getting fired probably changed some plans, but it is clear that from the beginning the plan was that the BDK would dominate, with Sara & Daize playing spoiler to the babyface teams, the tide would start to turn when Firghtmare won the YLC, and Quack and Jig would take the belts from Claudio and Ares to end the BDK's dominance.

Nexus was just people saying "hey, this would be a cool thing to have happen this week!" with very little thought put into next week, and almost none put into three months from now.

As for the Taker and Lesnar and Triple H thing, there are only a few guys who have the name power to be able to take those guys on, and, in Brock's case, the size to make it believable. If Taker's one match a year was against someone like Sheamus (where he was on the card at Mania time), or Dragon or Punk or Christian, people would bitch and moan about it being lame. Triple H was one of the few choices they had. The only others (IMO) were Kane, Orton, or Cena. With Brock... hell, who can even face him now, believably. The only guys that come to ind are Triple H, Mark Henry, Big Show, and Taker. Sheamus could do it with strong build.

I agree with you about anti-corporate Punk, but I think that it didn't really go away, so much as Punk got caught up dealing with Jericho, and by the time he was done with that, Johnny Ace was gone.

As for whether or not the unspoken goal of WWE is to establish itself as a draw: I'm not so sure it is "unspoken." WWE is big on branding. If "WWE" is the draw, rather than, say "CM Punk" or "John Cena," then WWE can run house shows without those guys and still draw well.

I agree that WWE want's to become the entity itself (it already is IMO). hence all the extra stuff they've been doing outside of wrestling. even dropping the "world wrestling entertainment" name to simply become wwe.

But to think that they would put guys down so they don't over shadow the company is hard to believe. They know that Cena's days are numbered. He has at most 10 yrs working at the rate he works at. He will need replacement, and you can't always rely on the old timers coming back.

I blame it more on that paranoia that ratings may go down, or that they wanna have someone huge and can't seem to find who to push, and when they do find one, as soon as he (there's really no point in saying she here, divas don't get pushed) stumbles on something, they begin the de-push. How many time have we've seen a guy given the title just to get taken off soon after for a RAW that had bad ratings? WWE can't afford to push wrestlers anymore because wwe has stopped being a wrestling company. Punk had to win the fans by talking smack and not by putting 5 star matches.

My biggest question in all of this hidden agenda talk is.....: HOW IS HE SUPPOSED TO WRASSLE IN THE DARK!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!